[Page 54]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Was that affidavit you spoke of by Count von Spreti, S-p-r-e-t-i?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, my Lord.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of Sauckel's decrees as Document 109 which will give an idea of the great care he took over all kinds of matters. This list will give only the titles.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you did not give a number to the affidavit of Count von Spreti.

[Page 55]

Then as Documents 110, 111 and 112 -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, are you not giving us exhibit numbers now?

DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot do so at the moment because I have not got the originals with me and most of these are originals which have been submitted already.

THE PRESIDENT: But you see, in the case of the defendant Sauckel, as in the case of every other defendant, the exhibits put in on his behalf, the exhibits offered in evidence on his behalf should have a consecutive series of numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by the counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It does not depend upon whether he has the original before him.

DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I can give them the exhibit numbers. Document 108 will be Exhibit 18.

THE PRESIDENT: Which is that?

DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit 18.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if you would carefully go through your exhibits and give the list to the General Secretary, giving the exact number of each document.

DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.

Then Documents 110, 111 and 112 contained in the supplement are three laws which deal with the position of the Reich Defence Commissioner who was mentioned in connection with manpower. The Reich Defence Commissioner is, of course, the Gauleiter who was mentioned during the case of Speer in connection with the armament industry. These are merely the basic laws, so that they are at the disposal of the Tribunal.

After the case of Speer had been heard, I received an affidavit from the witnesses Hildebrandt and Stothfang, who had been examined here in Court. It deals with the question of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer's instructions and what the relations were between the two departments. The prosecution have not yet defined their attitude and I think perhaps it would be best if -

MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted, Mr. President. We have no objection whatever to it. As a matter of fact, if it was not submitted by Dr. Servatius, we intended to offer it ourselves.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it is irregular, really, that a witness who has been called and has given evidence, has been cross-examined-has been re- examined and cross-examined by any other counsel for the defence who want to, that he should be entitled to give any other evidence, but if you are both agreed that it is convenient in this case, as a special circumstance, we will admit it.

MR. DODD: I think - Mr. President, I, of course, appreciate at once the Tribunal's observation about submitting affidavits of witnesses who have been before the Tribunal. What happened here was that some rather material matters were not gone into when he was here, and I think the Tribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the situation about Sauckel and Speer with respect to their relative and individual responsibilities for this slave labour programme. Other than that, I, of course, would not urge it at all. I think the Tribunal will find it helpful.

DR. FLAECHSNER (counsel for the defendant Speer): Mr. President, I would not make a formal objection against the admission of such an affidavit if I were not convinced in this particular case that with the admission of such an affidavit a series of questions will be opened up, which will, in turn, necessitate further

[Page 56]

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything in answer to that objection?

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a supplement to the instructions contained in Document 4006, which the prosecution is proposing to submit; but I did not know that this was proposed. What we are actually concerned with here is a question which was opened up by Speer's examination, namely, the significance of Speer's Ministry as compared to Sauckel's department. Who, of the two, was the more powerful; who could give orders; who had to obey. I think the documents will make that clear.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you and the prosecution had the opportunity of cross-examining Speer when he was in the witness-box and you could then have elucidated anything you wanted to elucidate at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only the circumstances were not known to me at that moment.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to press this, and if the Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw my position. I thought it might be helpful, but it really is not important and if there is any question I think it is better we let it go.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks it is irregular to introduce new evidence by affidavits from a person who has already been called as a witness, and in view of the objection on behalf of the defendant Speer, it cannot accept the evidence.

DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I will withdraw it.

That completes my statement of evidence. The only thing that is still outstanding is the witness Letsch's interrogatory, which has been granted, and the interrogatory of the witness Bachenbach, and I have no hope of receiving them.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer?

DR. STEINBAUER (counsel for defendant Dr. Seyss-Inquart): Mr. President, I have four documents which I beg to submit and which I have received through the General Secretary. The Tribunal has allowed them and the prosecution know of them. Unfortunately, however, the translations have not yet been completed.

The first document contains questions and answers from Dirk- Hannema, director of the Bovmans Museum in Rotterdam, about the alleged plundering of art treasures. I shall give this document number 108. I shall submit the English text and the Dutch original.

The next document is an edition of the newspaper Nieuw Rotterdamsche Courant, dated 17th May, 1942, of which I have the original and a German translation. It contains a warning regarding the shooting of hostages. This document I shall submit in the original under No. 109.

The following document is also an edition of the same newspaper; it is dated 10th August, 1942, and it also contains an announcement regarding the shooting of hostages. In connection with this document, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this announcement was the result of an order from the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in Holland, General Christiansen, and that the Higher SS and Police Leader Rauter signed it. I shall give it number 110.

The next document I received only yesterday from the General Secretariat and it is a copy of the interrogatory of General der Kavallerie von Kleffel. From the

[Page 57]

Today, the General Secretary's office sent me two affidavits; one comes from the former commander of the Defence District of Scheveningen. His name is Erwin Tschoppe. He is submitting an affidavit dealing with the attitude and conduct of the defendant with respect to the evacuation of the coastal area. Because of the short time at my disposal, I have not yet been able to show this document or the following one to the prosecution, but I have already informed the prosecution that these two documents exist. The second document is also -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, these documents, I understand, have not been shown to the prosecution and they have not been approved by the Tribunal, and, one question that arises is, are they very long? Because I find that the translation division is being overloaded with very long documents.

DR. STEINBAUER: No, it is a short document, but it appears to me to be important, because it shows how the defendant acted during that difficult situation and how he took care of the Dutch population.

THE PRESIDENT: If it is short and if you will submit it to the prosecution, then it can be translated and admitted subject to any objection.

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir. The same applies to the following document which I also received today. It is an affidavit of Adalbert Joppich. He was President of the German Supreme Court in the Netherlands, and he makes a very brief statement about the position and the attitude of the defendant with regard to legal questions affecting the Dutch civilian population. I beg that this document also be admitted in evidence and that I may use the same procedure of submitting a copy of the translation to the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: What number did you give?

DR. STEINBAUER: The Tschoppe document will be No. 112 and the Adalbert Joppich document will be No. 113. Documents allowed by the Tribunal and still outstanding are affidavits by Bolle, Dr. Reuter, Volkers and Lindhorst-Hohmann. The General Secretariat and I are trying to obtain these affidavits. So far it has only been possible to ascertain Bolle's address. Finally, I request that two applications which I have made in writing should be granted; one concerns the obtaining of the defendant's NSDAP. membership card which was impounded when he was arrested, and which must be among his personal documents in the custody of the Tribunal. A few months ago I made a request to that effect, but both sides apparently lost sight of the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you do not mean that it is in the custody of the Tribunal; you may mean that it is in the custody of the military authorities.

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. I meant the Prison Administrative Department, of course.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt they can produce it. What was the other document?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President, then in the cross- examination -

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I do not want to take up your Lordship's time, but that membership card could have been applied for months ago. It is on the same footing as these documents which counsel has been putting in. We have not seen them. I do not know what this card is going to prove, but it is going to be a great deal of trouble to get it here, just as these documents are giving a great deal of work to the Translation Division.

[Page 58]

DR. STEINBAUER: It is of importance because according to the war crime law which has now been published in Austria, all members having a membership number above 6,500,000 will not be regarded as the so-called "old fighters" or illegal members. Seyss-Inquart has stated in the witness-box -

THE PRESIDENT: That has nothing to do with this Tribunal. It may be relevant in some other proceeding and before some other court but not before this Court.

DR. STEINBAUER: Only in so far as the prosecution had alleged that he had been a member of the N.S.D.A.P. since 1931. But, of course, I am not trying to make difficulties. I only thought that the membership card might be among the belongings which were taken away from the prisoner and that one could have a look at it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But did he deny that he was a member since 1937?

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, oh, yes. He states that he did not become a member until the 13th of March, 1938 - formally.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; formally, I remember, yes; but he had been a member of the Austrian Nazi Party very much longer, if I remember rightly.

MR. DODD: We will agree here and now, Mr. President, that that card would show that he became a member, as far as the card is concerned, on that date. I am sure that is what it will show and if it will help the doctor, we will be glad to agree to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. STEINBAUER: The last document for which I am applying is the following: During cross-examination a document was submitted in which an eighteen-year-old female police clerk named Hildegard Kunze confirms that my client caused Dutch Jews to be sterilised. Seyss-Inquart maintains that he has never written to the police directly, but that in three personal letters addressed to Himmler, he did object to the treatment of Jews, and that in one of his letters he mentioned sterilisation. This, presumably, was the reason the witness mentioned it and probably she gained knowledge of these facts through seeing the original or copy of the letters which Himmler may have passed on to the Reich Security Main Office. In connection with this important matter my client has requested me to make an attempt to have these letters which he wrote to Himmler produced in order to disprove the incriminating statement made by the witness Hildegard Kunze. I do not conceal the fact that it will probably be difficult to find these letters amongst the very many documents of the Reich Security Main Office.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you made your application in writing about this?

DR. STEINBAUER: yes, I have made a written application.

THE PRESIDENT: Giving the dates when the letters were written?

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, everything I could ascertain regarding the dates and the addresses is contained in my application.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that, but you understand that the work involved in this sort of thing is very great indeed.

DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, far be it from me to underestimate the difficulties which are connected with my application. Apart from this, I have no further application to make.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor